"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

I liken FOW to Madonalds, Flashy presentation and a market leader and a one stop shop, but limited menu to their latest fad.

But they didnt invent the hamburger, don't serve the best hamburgers and it isn't the best restaurant I have ever visited by far, but the kids love it.

And I would love to know where all these new player of ww2 have come from cause I havent seen any of them….maybe they are all in madonalds……

Come on down to tacoma WA. They are overrunning my FLGS.

Now many of them are 40K transplants, but many are not.

Games have always been like that. For years back in the 70s I heard what a great set of rules tractics was, and never met a single person who had seen a set. Everybody knew somebody who had.

In some places all the old Grognards have scared the young ones into hideing.

Forgot to add, the largest zap a gap glue size is now refered to as supersize because of all the Mcds employees that shop there, so you could be right.

I have a copy of tractics. it even had a d20 supplied with it and was my very first non d6.

Tacoma is a little far away, I originate from the same place as the first Macdonalds

I made a point a while back about the trend moving towards supermarket instant wargames and with following coments like…… 'I HATE the fact that to assemble the army I want, I need to goto 3 different vendors for minis' and that other rules dont have painting guides and lack of fluff…. it appears to be holding true.

One thought that came to mind was, why would anyone need a painting guide for WW2? Early German tanks were grey, then sand British were darker green like Russian and American were slightly lighter green, Thats if the original colour could be decearned through the dirt, mud, sun bleaching, equipment, locally dawbed cammo with any paint available, foliage, bits of track and sand bags… The uniforms were much the same. Do newer wargamers not want to make any sort personal modeling decision; one decent illustrated history book on the subject would suffice, its hardly Napoleonics in its pagent?

But you know that. At least here in the USA, many younger gamers dont know who fought in the war, much less details as to what they wore and vehicle colars.

And no, many of them dont know where to look, at least not to start with. And they dont have jhuge bucks to get a decent library.

Sure there are other ways, but they have to learn them. You sound as if it offends you that the company makes it easy, instead of forceing you do do hours of research. While some of us love plowing through a dozen books to find obscure facts(me), many just want to play the game.

And those are the ones that the old stylegames turn off. I just dont get why some would rather they not play at all instead of FOW. I cant understand for the life of me why anyone would watch a cricket game, but I am not personaly offended and dont feel a need to go on a cricket bashing crusade. And yet thats exactly how some treat FOW.

If we're going to use a cricket analogy I'd suggest that FoW can be compared to the Twenty20 game.

It is very popular indeed and is said to be responsible for attracting a lot of new blood to the game – but fans of the traditional longer game would say it's all flash and completely lacking in depth.

Badger22…You sound as if it offends you that the company makes it easy….

It doesnt offend me, you have coined that to suit your view. I said I was amazed that people need painting guides, and said why. You also said many dont know where to look ??? You have conjoured that up too for effect, If they are capable of typing their name they can type 'WW2' into any search engine!!!! its hardly rocket science and is totaly free….I was only replying to what was actually posted on here and quoted it.
I also said buy ONE decent illustrated WW2 book at probably half the cost of one FOW supplement which I presume they seem to be able to afford. Please dont do a tabloid press and read between the lines of what iv put to suit your argument. As for your comment that…'At least here in the USA, many younger gamers dont know who fought in the war'… I hardly think thats a true reflection, im sure they know far more than you give them credit for and wargaming tends to attract quite educated people.

'At least here in the USA, many younger gamers don't know who fought in the war'… I hardly think thats a true reflection

This is true, speaking as an American educator.

Speaking as someone 10 years out of High School I totally agree. We were watching Gettysburg in a basic history class in 11th grade IIRC and I had 3 people ask me what country the Union was. WW2 was the same story.

And this was a class that was so basic I could have taught all but the gilded age off the top of my head.

Last time I visited my old highschool, my favorite history teeacher told me he now had to cover all of WWII in a single class. Not hard to see that a few things get left out.

You have to be here to see the terrible state history is in at US public schools.

The Education system in the US has fallen prey to political influences, such that policy is being taught more than history.

The text books have been revised so many times that the basic history is being lost. Political correctness run amok.

On the other hand, where I live we have many knowlegable teens. Most are former GW and Card game players that saw us playing with tanks and took an interest. The best way to hook these playes is to introduce them to great movies. Iron Cross, BoB, Saving Private Ryan, Battle of the Bulge, When Trumpets Fade, etc.

Hook them with a little bit of show, then show them how the game can be played. Let them see how even Historical forces can be fun to play. I usually print out KtSn sheets for whichever force I am playing that day. I then give a copy or two out to some of the younger players, making sure the website is easy for them to see on the paper.

At the tournament in September (MW), most of the forces used were historically based. All were legal FoW, but it was nice to see real historical forces. I was not the only one with an early 42 force.

A 19 year old fielded a 42 Soviet Tank Force(he came in 2nd), I fielded an early 42 German Infantry force. Another player fielded a mid 42 German Panzer force.

The key is to introduce the game to players in a way that makes it fun. Winning and powergaming aside, the game of FoW is balanced enough to be played many different ways. If you show kids that its fun even when you don't have Tigers and Panthers, they will eat it up.

FoW is like any other set of rules, it is only as good as the people using it. The only limitations it presents are the ones you make for yourself. Imagination and fun are the keys to take any game farther.

Chris

Quote…
We were watching Gettysburg in a basic history class in 11th grade IIRC and I had 3 people ask me what country the Union was…….

and those people will walk amongst you ? ;o/

That perhaps answers the question of those that frequent the Fow forums…. with the wince making 'I fink tigers are real coool' type comments… its all falling into place ;o)

Well, at least it gets the younger crowd to explore the WW2 era even if it is a mere scratch on the surface of an iceberg.

I believe that time is a factor for a number of people these days (myself included). If a game can be completed in a couple of hours that has to be a plus. I've started to teach students in my high school club this game and they seem to enjoy it so far.

I would have to say though that a number of topics on the BF forums are unbelievably inane.

ex: "King Tigers should be banned!"

I cannot help but think, "Hey, there has to be a way to
POP that Tiger!"

Yes, the glitz and glamour of the books are hard to beat. However, it did have its effect on the younger generation.

One of the students who had just started being in my lunchtime club saw the game for the first time. He looked at the BF website and ordered teh MRB , Afrika, a box of grendiers and a box of US rifles. That has to say something. Yes, he is a 40K player, but hey, he is making the upward spiral of historical miniatures! MUAHAHAHAHA!!!

Imagine if there was a set of rules this simple for other time periods …

"He looked at the BF website and ordered teh MRB , Afrika, a box of grendiers and a box of US rifles"

According to my reckoning that's about US$200 worth of stuff and these guys can't afford a couple of Osprey's?! :-) Or maybe that's why they can't afford them! :-)

Imagine if there was a set of rules this simple for other time periods …

There are loads rules that are this simple for other periods. And many of them are much better games than FoW.

But there are no sets of historical rules that are even close to FoW standards of presentation and marketing.

Derek Hodge wrote:
"There are loads rules that are this simple for other periods. And many of them are much better games than FoW."

Derek Hodge wrote in another TMP topic:
"Works for me. I don't own a copy of FoW, I don't play it and I don't feel aggrieved."

Actually I have just found a set of the ones they gave away over the Internet when when they were playtesting. I reckon I was overcharged.

I have read the more recent versions and follow most of the debates on the FoW forums.

rdered teh MRB , Afrika, a box of grendiers and a box of US rifles

Intending to fight the infamous US and Afrika Korps battles? :-D

'I would have to say though that a number of topics on the BF forums are unbelievably inane.
ex: "King Tigers should be banned!"'

The winner for me, lately, was the Gallery thread on the objective marker showing commissars executing German POWs: not the model itself, or the rambling introspective posts, but the cascade of "Kewl!" responses.

And then there's the "Buggler?" question.

Allen

"Intending to fight the infamous US and Afrika Korps battles?"

You're kidding, I hope.

Allen

I thought it was a hunting horn, not a bugle.

And a thread about how its unfair that KTs cant be killed from the front.

But…the little twerps are doing some real research to back up thier claims. Of course, they still wont change thier minds, but then there are some on this site that wont change thier minds no matter what. Not I have ran across any of course.

So how about getting some of those companys with better games to get off of thier butts, and make a product that can compete, instead of complaining. Much like the complaint about the KTs.

I much prefer BG:WWII, but they have not put out anything in years. I liked coffin for seven brothers, but to few vehicles done, and mostly eastern front. I still have Angrief laying about. And when one of them puts out something that can competewith FOW as far as the fan base, so I can find somebody to play it regular, then I shall switch. Until then, I shall play FOW rather than sit around contemplating my superior game that nobody plays.

Some of the people on the FoW forums really know their stuff and can helpful indeed if you're doing research. The forums can be well worth visiting if you can wade your way through the tons of crap. I've learned a lot there.

My personal favourite recently is the detailed argument about whether or not British Airbourne AA assets should be available in the appropriate codex (sorry army list).

There's much discussion of exactly what Divisional AA assets were present in Normandy, when and how they arrived and how they were deployed to protect rear area assets as what limited German airpower was avaialble was being used to attack there rather than at the front lines. If the Germans had changed targets the AA could easily have been moved four miles up the road.

An interesting discussion in which I learned lots of things I never knew before and which will be useful when I get round to doing support stuff for my British paras.

Some people are arguing that all this means that the AA assetts should not be in the codex as they were never actually used in the front line.

Some of them are competition gamers arguing that having AA tanks in the list would be ahistorical as the things weren't actually deployed in the front line in Normandy (they were four or five miles down the road and available if needed).

But they're quite happy that people should make British Airbourne forces using these lists and then fight with them against Russians, Americans or even themselves.

You couldn't make it up.

Badger22……when one of them puts out something that can competewith FOW as far as the fan base, so I can find somebody to play it regular, then I shall switch. Until then, I shall play FOW rather than sit around contemplating my superior game that nobody plays…………

So Badger22 you will play any crap rule set because lots of others do?

With that in mind, if I were you I wouldnt holiday in Bolivia, as all the tribesmen there eat live termites as a basic food ;o)

Its not rocket science to write a decent set of rules that portray the subject period in a resonably realistic way. Its the intent behind the writing of the rules that often decides the quality of their mechanics. Trying to shoehorn lots of extra rules, that hadnt been planned for at the outset, into a system not originally designed and capable of accepting more than very basic effects is often their down fall. The worst one though is cloning a set of rules designed for one period for use in a completley different age. E.G. These work well for ancients lets use them for Modern, it invariably fails.

Roy

Hammer: I do think that trying to find people to play with is a fair reason to play a game.

I have not played FoW, but later today UPS should be bringing me a bunch of 15mm Soviets (mostly from OG) so I can build a force. Would I be against playing another set of rules with these troops if I can? Heck No! I am hoping to someday live somewhere where more obscure rules are used because of the reviews I have read on TMP. The problem is I know I am not the kind of guy to make converts of people who like a system.

That being said, I am planning on picking up IABSM soon so that when I move later this year I can be the new guy with that really fun WWII rules set with the funny name.

Now, if someone out there were to write a really nice WWII game designed with the FoW basing in mind, that right there could make a lot of people happy.

"Its not rocket science to write a decent set of rules that portray the subject period in a resonably realistic way."

So hammer when are your rules coming out?

"So hammer when are your rules coming out?"

Don't get him started! :-) You must be the only person on TMP to not know that Roy has a set of WW2 rules out. Moderns and if the rumours are true a soon to be released sci fi set.

really nice WWII game designed with the FoW basing

Isn't that copyrighted ? ;-)

Mort the ever living…..So hammer when are your rules coming out?

Thanks for that Fred ;o) rumours are true, Sci-Fi and Micro

Mort try here… with an open mind ;o)

hammerwargames.co.uk

and

link

Roy

Thank you i guess i was the only one. i am not being sarcastic i just want to see what can be done better rather then complaing without another option :-) T

Very intresting hammer i will have to pickup a set to have a go. thank you for the info. now back to the fun. T

Nothing like a rattling good discusion, its what wargamers are best at… counting nuts and bolts and being critical.

The MS system is there to be really liked or severly criticised like the rest, as long as its not apathy I can take it ;o)

Roy

I don't get critical on a game unless i play it or own the rules. it just seems like sour grapes on some people on this forum about F.O.W. i like the game but i am not a fanboy about it. but as soon a the crud dies down there is the i hate battlefront guys posting some stupid post about ranges to get it started again. it just t's me off.It's just a game to be loved or hated :-)

P.S. how is it that i am looking for a 28mm modern game and up pops yours, are you reading my mind :-) T

Badger wrote

"I much prefer BG:WWII, but they have not put out anything in years. I liked coffin for seven brothers, but to few vehicles done, and mostly eastern front. I still have Angrief laying about. And when one of them puts out something that can competewith FOW as far as the fan base, so I can find somebody to play it regular, then I shall switch. Until then, I shall play FOW rather than sit around contemplating my superior game that nobody plays."

No body at my club plays FOW! That is also derek's club. There are 6 or 7 commonly played ww2 rules at our club, but no one uses FOW! FOW is not as popular as FOW claims because so many of the people playing it are not exposed to non-FOW ww2 players…..its just more wires and mirrors

Mort the ever loving wrote……

"I don't get critical on a game unless i play it or own the rules. it just seems like sour grapes on some people on this forum about F.O.W. i like the game but i am not a fanboy about it. but as soon a the crud dies down there is the i hate battlefront guys posting some stupid post about ranges to get it started again. it just t's me off.It's just a game to be loved or hated :-)"

What's sour grapes? Not thinking something is very good and having valid reasons for it? If you stop playing something , is it sour grapes?

Perhaps it has something to do with when anyone asks about any set of ww2 rules, every thread gets flooded by Tony the tiger lover saying…..

"I use FOW, theyre….GREEEEEAT! I've tried the other set of ww2 rules and these are better, because I don't need to think bout anything except being gamey ……and no one uses the other set anyway"

Now, if the FOW converts all did it correctly and kept it in perspective, then balance redress wouldnn't be required.

As far as critiscising/hating battlefront, They have done good stuff in the past and they are doing some pretty good stuff at the moment nd get full credit and hard earned dosh for their desired products, but they are also doing some pretty strange things regarding compatability and vehicles, with more and more vehicles being Resin vehicle-shaped blocks_on_a_base. I looked forward to getting some cut down quadlets as tows for my PP paras, but their latest resin brick (tm) release is a total letdown. and they are really making a habit of it.

When will you reognise It isn't hatred, its just frustrated disappointment…..in rules and even more in figures and vehicles

That certainly sums it up for me, Kevan. When I post something complimentary on… anything, it's because I've found a shiny new toy. If I'm critical, it's because I wanted it to be shiny, but found it to be otherwise.

Allen

But it sounds so miuch like hat and fury at both the game, and those who play it.

As fopr the vehicles, I am with you. I also collect 1/2400 ships. There are a number of good companys, and one called panzerschiffe. Panzerschiffe is little blocks of resin, that sort of look like the ship they are supposed to be. But, they are cheap compared to the others, and they have some that nobody else makes. I have 2 of thier titanics, and one zepplin.

If BF would cut the price on the resins a bit more, they would be OK. As it is, they are almost as expensive, and as you say are a bit blocky.

Ha[[y for you that you have lots of games to chose from. I dont.Unless you consider battletech an armor game( and I dont) FOW if it. And if it is the worst you have played, you are doing OK. Back in the late 70's there where some real dogs. One I remember playing but not the name, had a 4 in 10 chance of a penetrateing shot just going on through a tank.

Its a shame that lots of good rules dont get considered by the new masses now because of the glossy quality of the likes of Fow and GW stuff. Its set a bench mark in production but not rule inventiveness and content unfortunately. In fact to produce rule books to that quality isnt as expensive as you may think, the problem is the quantity you have to order to start with. the minimum is usually 1000, thats alot of rule books. Once the first run have gone through further orders are cheaper still. So with digital cameras, computer graphics and design programs its not that difficult.

The one thing I decided to do was produce my stuff myself for the first year, for the one simple reason, to make sure any errors or suspect rules and wording would be weeded out and corrected. There would have been nothing worse than having 1 – 2000 rule books sitting there with errors. fortunately there have been very few and those were instantly corrected. Nothing is more annoying to me than buying a new rule book than to have to amend errors and add bits the day you take it out of the bag. FoW has suffered this like so many and had to bring out a new book, WRG are famous for it and its expected as of the homeliness of RFCM's stuff… innit Fred ;o)

elijahdprophet: "Now, if someone out there were to write a really nice WWII game designed with the FoW basing in mind, that right there could make a lot of people happy."

You can certainly play Blitzkrieg Commander with FOW basing & I understand its quite feasible with IABSM & maybe Fire & Fury's 'Battlefront WWII' too.

So Derek your only basis for your understanding of the FOW rules is a Playtest version for V1?

Having talked to some in one of my clubs that did Playtest, I understand that the actual V1 rules are different in several points to the versions playtested 4-5 years ago.

That's without the changes that the various V1 Intel Handbooks brought in rules wise (Recon, engineering, etc).

And having helped playtest V2, and seen how many ideas came & went without seeing pubilcation, I think you have virtually no idea about the FOW rules, certainly as they stand today.

I'd have to agree about various missing units in the FOW intel handbooks, and it's a shame that BF have left them out for whatever reason. Certainly no reason to make a federal case out of it though. Proxy & house rules go a long way to filling the gap, or use your research and do an article for BF. It wouldn't be the first time something has been added because of such an article (Finns spring to mind iirc)

As for the standards of rules, the days when people will accept a photocopied A4 sheet folded into an A5 booklet has been and gone.
People, especially younger people expect a glossy professional looking product. They expect everything presented to them, and don't like to work to find information.
That doesn't mean that some, even a large % won't go do research themselves. At least the Intel Handooks have enough information for people to use as a basis, terms to search for etc.

Hammer, of course you think the FOW rules are crap, you felt the need to go design your own, despite literally dozens of existing rules systems out there. That doesn't mean that everyone else that is playing any of those games, thinks they're crap. I'd hardly say that FOW has failed, given the number of people playing across the world.

KevanG, sounds like you're in a fairly established gaming group, and all the better for you. Apart from the usual fantasy games like 40K, WHFB and WM, FOW is about the only game I can play, and find a regular opponent anywhere in Australia, or for that matter, the USA, Europe or UK. Having travelled around, I suggest you be grateful you have such a group, but it's hardly the norm all over the world.

As for threads being flooded by "Tony the tiger lover" and his like for FOW, here he's generally drowned out by the flood of posts against FOW, often vitriolic, and as likely as not based on an ignorance of the system.

'Its a shame that lots of good rules dont get considered by the new masses now because of the glossy quality of the likes of Fow and GW stuff.'

If it wasn't for GW and FoW there wouldn't be any 'new masses'!! :P

Sturmgrenadier, I dont think FoW are crap as such, just that the system chosen was idealy suited for a much earlier time period of history/gaming. Using it for the conplexities of C20th conflict makes it over laden with special rules on just about everything because the core mechanics cant absorb the detail, so its bitty.

WW2 in 15mm, if you want the game to look about right and be playable on an average table cant be higher than company level. FoW force more into the space so it becomes Phalanx looking. Its done like that to sell more gear rather than produce a neat looking / playing system. Their game would be far better in 6mm, but they dont sell 6mm. as an example no writer would contemplate having long range support artillery on table outside of a specific scenario, by shoehorning that sort of thing into the equasion, BF have unhinged what could have been an okish game. I like so many dived out and bought it when it came out but the truth is that I was really disappointed when I played it I was hoping it wouldnt be like that. But that is purely my personal view, I can see exactly why its popular and it certainly adds to one route in the hobby.

Now, if someone out there were to write a really nice WWII game designed with the FoW basing in mind, that right there could make a lot of people happy.

Try Blitzkrieg Commander, great game, you can use any basing but FOW basing is perfect for it.

PS
What tags do you use to get the nice white box around a quote anyone?

< q >Text in box here< / q >

But miss out the spaces between the characters in the
brackets

< q >Quote goes here< / q >

But miss out the spaces between the characters in the
brackets

Thanks

Now, if someone out there were to write a really nice WWII game designed with the FoW basing in mind, that right there could make a lot of people happy.

Give Blitzkrieg Commander a try! You can use all of the money you save on artillery platoons to buy another force! Or some research books!

But miss out the spaces between the characters in the
brackets

What like that?

"What's sour grapes? Not thinking something is very good and having valid reasons for it? If you stop playing something , is it sour grapes"

Derek has already said that he is out to get Battlefront and tweak there noise when he can. that sounds like sour grapes to me. kevin if it wern't for the glossy F.O.W. rules i would not have a historical gaming group in my store so i am glad they are there it led to playing other games and now i have quite a large group were flames is but a small part. i don't like all the rules either but constinly starting grip posts to complain is a little childish. my 2 cents T